Egypt unrest: what sparked the military crackdown on Brotherhood camps

Just one month after the overthrow of Egypt's first democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, the country is again facing uncertainty over its future.

This week, security forces violently attacked Morsi supporters, who were attacked at encampments near Cairo where they had been calling for the former president's return to power. The death toll from the attack is at 525 – and rising.

The US has strongly condemned the violence and is facing pressure to suspend aid to Egypt's military as the number of casualties and injuries continues to mount.

Join Spencer Ackerman and Martin Chulov on Friday afternoon for a Q&A on the crackdown, the country's future and the role of the US in the ongoing crisis.

Martin is an expert on the middle east who has reported extensively from Egypt and Syria for a number of years. Spencer is national security editor of Guardian US and will be able to provide context on the role of the US in the ongoing crisis.

Post your questions below and upvote your favorites.

This Q&A is now closed.

Thanks for participating. It'll take us just a few seconds to authenticate your Guardian identity and then your response will be posted.

The US has several national security concerns with Egypt. In no particular order: chaos that fuels al-Qaida, inside Egypt & beyond; an un/undergoverned Sinai peninsula that serves as a weapons transport hub (moreso); threats to its ally Israel in the form either of weapons pumped into Gaza or Egypt acting as a springboard for attacks. You used to hear the Obama administration talk about how a democratic Egypt would undermine al-Qaida's "narrative." That's... not been an argument it's deployed since the coup in July.

Even if, through pressure in the dtreets, the army is ready to compromise and the MB compromises by agreeing that Morsi cannot be reinstated, and new Parliamentary and Presidential elctions return ANY CIVILIAN group to power, there will be the same concentration of power as what the coup leaders reproach Morsi of. Why? Because the "deep state" will still have to be countered.

The answer to your second question is that the US should refrain from meddling and should immediately cut of military aid to repress the people. The concern for the US is regional stability, which they fatally assume is predicated on Israel dominating and terrifying its neighbours.Whatever Egyptian group is in power after the dust has settled will be nationalistic in case the US meddles further in regional affairs. Instability will increase.

A/ I wouldn't put money on Egypt emerging as a shining light of Jeffersonian democracy anytime soon. Turkey pre-Erdogan (with the military playing an active role) seems a best case scenario at this point.

B/ Spencer's got that covered. I'd just reiterate that US foreign policy in the region has a more narrow focus these days - Israel and the Palestinians is the main game. where Egypt fits into that matters much to Washington.

Morsi maintained the status quo in terms of Cairo and Washington’s recent bilateral history. Although being an avowed Islamist with strong ties to Hamas, he did nothing to jeopardise the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, the safeguarding of which has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy in the region for 35 years.

To that end, he was seen as being a leader that Washington could work with. To some extent, the Obama administration tried to shepherd his government in areas in which it was failing, such as economic policy. US annual aid to Egypt of $1.5 billion, ($1.5 billion of which effectively works as a gift voucher for the military to buy weapons), was delivered during Morsi’s year in office

Is the Coptic community under threat of "ethnic/religious cleansing (like the Christians in Iraq) - either from a legitimate Muslim Brotherhood government or from jihadist elements under a military crackdown?

the Coptic community is not under threat from a legitimate Muslim Brotherhood government because there should have been a parliament with the power to oversee their actions. The Parliament always contained Christian members, either elected or appointed. The media is also heavily anti -MB and pro Christians with the powerful tycoon Naguib Sawires owning several TV channels and newspapers. Any country with powerful institutions will protect all its citizens. The invasion of Iraq broke it down completely and there was no functioning institutions at all as the Americans wanted to break it down completely. May I also remind you that in Iraq, Sunni muslims are not safe from ethnic cleansing and Shia muslims are not safe from repeated bombings. Jihadist elements when slaughtered by Egyptian police in the 1990 tried to get back at them by attacking weaker targets e.g. tourists, Christians etc. Ex-jihadists have been incorporated in the political process after they said they have denounced terrorism and formed political parties. They have vowed not to go down that route again against civilian targets. I do not expect them to. If they decide to fight, they will attack police and army targets only, on the basis that they attacked peaceful protesters first.

I'd like to know why most international governments and media are so heavily biased towards the Muslim Brotherhood?I live in Cairo and have experienced the revolution since it started in 2011 first hand, and would like you to see these bits of videos released just today.

The key question. Coup supporters don't acknowledge that what took place was undemocratic. They suggest that the military finished off for them a popular revolution that represented majority views. Jailing an elected president, charging him and his aides, shutting 7 tv stations and suspending the constitution, is hardly democratic though. All eyes on the next eight months when General Sisi is supposed to steward the country away from interim military rule back to civilian rule. Hard to see how the next democratically elected president and parliament will have control over the executive though.

why can't news reports keep to the same story,instead of changing the facts to increase public anger?what is the REAL story?how about some TRUTH for a change.1st i saw was..mass demonstrations by the Egyptian ppl..who were angry at the laws that were been forced upon them by the muslim brotherhood..then the military by mass public pressure was removing the government because of these laws..not a COUP wat-so-ever,even military said new elections next year.now its just violence..unjust military..claims on both sides of sick events.SO what is the truth??

So would this be the way to go? What laws are you talking about and how were those laws so wrong? Do you know anything about Egypt's history? Pardon my cynicism, do you know anything about Egypt's modern history? Allow me to fill-you-in: For the past 3 decades 1981-2001 Egypt was ruled by a military man and military laws. 30 years under the boot and emergency/marshal laws. Elections were a farce and the population was mainly consisting - and still is - of landlords,Tycoons and filthy rich on one end, and folks living in the graveyard and slums, along with a large portion of poor and a very poor working class on the other end. Whenever protesters raised their voice, churches were set afire to put the blame on religious groups rather than resolving the people's issues or listening to the others opinions. The West, the rest of the world did not pay much attention because they could always come and visit, spend nice holidays on sandy beaches, take fine pics of museums and pyramids, give the poor mendicants a few pennies and off they go, back to the "civilized" world. So on 2011, when Mubarak was toppled, and a year later the people democratically elected the first president in 5000 years, the expectations were so high. They expected him to fix in one year what has been broken for 6 decades: infrastructures, education, social welfare and most importantly: the economy. In spite of the inclusive tendency - only 6 cabinet ministers were actually linked to MB and affiliates - and that's 6 out of 18 cabinet ministers, and in spite of the continuous invites to other politicians to join and bring their contribution to the table, those invites had been refused and ridiculed. Morsi was at office because he was elected. So when he was ousted, people who voted took on the streets, and now they are being shot dead because they have been labeled terrorists, islamists, hell-raisers and so forth.

Please tell us how non-protesting citizens in the effected areas are coping with the many disruptions to their daily lives and routines. Surely they are scared, appalled, and terribly inconvenienced. The destruction of lives, monuments, neighborhoods must be profound.

The sit-ins were in two parts of the city and weren't disruptive to much of life in Cairo, except to residents who lived nearby. Destruction has by and large been limited to those areas, so far. Although up to 7 churches and several government buildings have been torched. The coming weeks may make matters worse. But until now, society hasn't slowed to a halt.

Good thought. Though having spent much time in Cairo recently, it's clear that the society is deeply polarised. Everyone seems to have a black or white view. Not a lot of critical thinking going on. For many, it's a protest of sticking to a worldview and seeing what emerges.